On the Vought F4U . . .

[Andy L]

I need some help here from any experts please.

I have gotten myself embroiled in a discussion on Facebook (sigh . . . yes, I know, I'm stupid) which is turning decidedly aggressive. It concerns with which arm actually cleared the F4U for carrier combat; my published sources all agree it was the FAA, the naysayers claim this is a longstanding myth yet seem unable to offer up any published proof.

(I suspect there may be an element of partisanship here.)

Can anybody on this august board offer any further evidence to clear this up, one way or another?

Many thanks in advance.

Andy

[Pdf27]

May also be some slippery definitions of "cleared for Carrier Combat": we have a clear date first combat date for the RN of 3rd April 1944 when Corsairs from HMS Victorious took part in Operation Tungsten. We also have a photo dated February 1944 of Gambier Bay carrying F4Us when she was supposedly flying off replacement aircraft to Enterprise during the Marshall Islands campaign - I suspect that they were actually being flown off to land-based Marine forces, but naturally the sources don't say anything about it.

https://www.history.navy.mil/content/hi ... 18367.html

[MikeKozlowski]

...Andy,

FWIW my understanding is that the USN actually got their birds carrier qualified in the spring of 1943, (first actual deck landing may have been aboard Wolverine, which must have been interesting) but the handling issues - and parts shortages too - were sufficiently bad that it was simply easier to keep pumping out Hellcats and send the Corsairs to the USMC. The FAA didn't get their first birds until almost the end of 43, but didn't get them onto carriers until at least January 44 - the dates are a bit unclear.

Will happily admit to error.

Mike

[Andy L]

Thanks everyone; the issue is certainly clouded, circumstantial evidence suggests it was the USN who first type-cleared the F4U, even if only by dint of the extensive carrier ops before the FAA's first combat.

Cheers anyway.

[Nightwatch2]

I need some help here from any experts please.

I have gotten myself embroiled in a discussion on Facebook (sigh . . . yes, I know, I'm stupid) which is turning decidedly aggressive. It concerns with which arm actually cleared the F4U for carrier combat; my published sources all agree it was the FAA, the naysayers claim this is a longstanding myth yet seem unable to offer up any published proof.

(I suspect there may be an element of partisanship here.)

Can anybody on this august board offer any further evidence to clear this up, one way or another?

Many thanks in advance.

Andy

Why would the Federal Aviation Administration clear Navy planes for carrier combat?

(yea, I know - joke)

[Johnnie Lyle]

I need some help here from any experts please.

I have gotten myself embroiled in a discussion on Facebook (sigh . . . yes, I know, I'm stupid) which is turning decidedly aggressive. It concerns with which arm actually cleared the F4U for carrier combat; my published sources all agree it was the FAA, the naysayers claim this is a longstanding myth yet seem unable to offer up any published proof.

(I suspect there may be an element of partisanship here.)

Can anybody on this august board offer any further evidence to clear this up, one way or another?

Many thanks in advance.

Andy

Why would the Federal Aviation Administration clear Navy planes for carrier combat?

(yea, I know - joke)

Critical crayon shortages due to the war impaired the usecof the usual F4U operators

[David Newton]

I need some help here from any experts please.

I have gotten myself embroiled in a discussion on Facebook (sigh . . . yes, I know, I'm stupid) which is turning decidedly aggressive. It concerns with which arm actually cleared the F4U for carrier combat; my published sources all agree it was the FAA, the naysayers claim this is a longstanding myth yet seem unable to offer up any published proof.

(I suspect there may be an element of partisanship here.)

Can anybody on this august board offer any further evidence to clear this up, one way or another?

Many thanks in advance.

Andy

Why would the Federal Aviation Administration clear Navy planes for carrier combat?

(yea, I know - joke)

For those who don't realise, FAA in this case stands for Fleet Air Arm, the Royal Navy's aircraft section.

[Nightwatch2]

I need some help here from any experts please.

I have gotten myself embroiled in a discussion on Facebook (sigh . . . yes, I know, I'm stupid) which is turning decidedly aggressive. It concerns with which arm actually cleared the F4U for carrier combat; my published sources all agree it was the FAA, the naysayers claim this is a longstanding myth yet seem unable to offer up any published proof.

(I suspect there may be an element of partisanship here.)

Can anybody on this august board offer any further evidence to clear this up, one way or another?

Many thanks in advance.

Andy

Why would the Federal Aviation Administration clear Navy planes for carrier combat?

(yea, I know - joke)

For those who don't realise, FAA in this case stands for Fleet Air Arm, the Royal Navy's aircraft section.

Sigh……

Sarcasm and humor are lost on some

[David Newton]

No they're not lost at all. I know perfectly well what was meant. I was simply explaining for those who may not.

[Pdf27]

Sarcasm and humor are lost on some

Annoyingly only the CANA and not the FAA seems to have used the Corsair in Argentina

[MikeKozlowski]

Sarcasm and humor are lost on some

Annoyingly only the CANA and not the FAA seems to have used the Corsair in Argentina

And the El Salvador Air Force, or FAS, got the last piston-engine kill in history with a Corsair (actually a Goodyear-built FG-1D) on 17 July 69:



Mike

[Andy L]

(sigh . . . funny F ckers!!)